When success can be an enemy

It may sound counter intuitive but ministry success can be an enemy in at least two ways.

First, when a ministry has seen a great period of success in its past, it often spends the next decades either thinking they are still living in that glorious past when they are not. Or, they are trying to recreate that past when they cannot. This is often true of local churches who saw a "heyday" that people remember. That past success keeps them from making the needed changes to move into a different future since "it worked in the past and so should work in the future." 

Of course it rarely does and the ministry usually does not move on until it can bless the past as the past and embrace a new vision for the future. What got you to here got you to here: it will not get you to there. 

Success can also be a blinder in the present. Success does not mean that a ministry is healthy. It just means that for some reason it is seeing greater momentum than it has in the past. I watched one church move to a new location and quickly triple in size. Yet there were many issues internally that needed to be resolved. However, because of the rapid growth (from a move) it was assumed by some leaders that all was well (it was not). 

Momentum should not keep us from asking hard questions about the health of an organization for two reasons. First, because there may be other reasons for that momentum. Second, because momentum does not last forever and the most important issue is the internal health of staff, leadership and long term viability and fruitfulness. Momentum and "success" can mask issues for a time but not forever. Eventually they surface!

The moral is that past success is not the key to future success and present success is not a reason to let our guard down and assume all is well. That success, past or present can bring with it both arrogance and carelessness, each of which are an enemy.

Independence is a killer of organizational excellence

Organizational excellence - in any ministry or organization requires leaders to work in cooperation toward common goals. Too often, however, leaders want independence rather than interdependence, leaving the organization with multiple directions and a significant lack of alignment. 

In recent conversations with a large church staff, one of the staff members made the comment that what had been rewarded on their staff was the development of successful ministries rather than cooperative efforts - leaving the church with ministry silos without a common direction. There was no incentive to work together.

Here is an irony: Leaders insist that those on their team play ball together and follow their direction. In many cases, those very leaders are unwilling to to play ball with other leaders or to make themselves accountable for their own alignment and cooperation. They insist on alignment below them but do not submit or work toward alignment above them.

The independence of ministry leaders - doing their own thing - hampers many churches from experiencing greater impact and other ministry organizations the same. 

The sad thing is that they are modelling the antithesis of what they tell their own teams. And it does not go unnoticed. The sadder thing is that lack of interdependence, the humility to get on the same page with others and intentional cooperative efforts keeps the organization from experiencing the impact it could otherwise have.

It raises an interesting question. Why do those who lead so often find it hard to follow? And if I cannot follow (if I am part of an organization) do I have the moral authority to lead?  Our fierce independent streak is remarkably close to how Isaiah describes our sinfulness - "each of us has turned to our own way (Isaiah 53:6)." 

Organizational ministry is not an individual sport like golf. It is, rather a team sport like football, basketball or soccer where unless everyone knows their position and cooperates with the rest of the team and executes plays together there will not be a winning team. Often ministries who could be a winning team are leaving great spiritual influence on the table because they are in a team sport but their leaders are doing an individual thing and ignoring their coach. 

Before I am a leader, I am a follower. Even when I am a leader I am a follower. Leaders lead - and they follow, if part of an organization. When they don't, they lose their moral authority to lead. 

The General Motors Syndrome. Why good people in good organizations resist needed change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed

As an organizational leader and consultant I see the General Motors Syndrome played out in churches, ministry organizations, missions and denominations: Those inside the organization cannot see the need for change while those outside look in and wonder why in the world good people don't see what they see - the world has changed but they have not. 

Why, for instance, did the organizational structure and culture of General Motors not change until bankruptcy when Toyota, and others where light years ahead of them in efficiency and quality? Why do even large churches resist changing antiquated structures that hinder them and no longer work for them? Why do mission organizations who have seen their entire context change but continue to operate as if they were in the pre globalized world? Why do denominations struggle with changing structures that served them 50 or 100 years ago but no longer?

The why question is even more powerful when one realizes that there is almost always demonstrable evidence that change is needed. Even in the face of that evidence, change can be hard to come by and is met by resistance. So why do good people in good organizations resist needed changes in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is needed?

Let me suggest three key reasons.

One, organizations like families are systems that resist any changes to the status quo. It is why missional is often subverted by institutional. Institutional is comfortable while missional is a threat to the status quo of the system (organizational). In families, if one individual tries to pull away from the family system, the rest of the family applies pressure to bring them back in. That is why it is called a family "system." A perceived threat to the status quo can be met with fierce resistance that to others makes no sense but within the "system" it makes all the sense in the world. 

When I proposed major change in the mission I lead, the "system" worked to try to pressure the system back to where it had been previously which was known and comfortable. The organizational family system was threatened and wanted equilibrium again. This is why organizations find change so hard. The existing family system resists even change that outsiders think is a no brainer. 

Two: organizations, like individuals have an EQ quotient. A major part of individual EQ is the ability to know oneself, our strengths and weaknesses and how we are perceived by others. All of us have met people who lack that quality. Others see what they cannot see and to a certain extend that is true even for an individual of healthy EQ. 

Organizations are no different. What did the executives of GM think sitting up in their executive dining room surrounded by luxury as the world around them changed radically? Their corporate EQ was severely lacking. 

I once consulted with a church that had gone from 500 to 50 in a 2 million dollar facility and when I told them they were not healthy they asked what the evidence was! That is a corporate EQ issue. It is also why organizations need outside counsel when looking at significant change. Others can see what they no longer see. We become so entrenched in the system that we no longer see ourselves with any degree of objectivity. We have become the system! We no longer see objectively. 

Three, and this is less neutral than the first two. When Patrick Lencioni published his book Silos, Politics and Turf Wars they flew off the shelf, were avidly read, people saw themselves in the mirror and many of their organizations saw no change. Why? Because the politics, silos and turf wars were too strong to allow change. People do not easily give up their turf, even for good reasons. Turf and autonomy are power and they don't easily yield power. This is a spiritual issue while the first two issues are organizational system and EQ issues. 

Fifteen years ago, the team I served on, the senior team of the EFCA made a decision to give up a measure of our individual and departmental autonomy in order to get on the same page and serve the whole with greater effectiveness. There was blood on the floor in some of our initial meetings. We were tearing down silos, addressing the politics and declaring there was no more turf. Responsibility for our areas - yes. Turf - no. And our mission and the accomplishment of that mission had to take precedence over our "individual rights" and sometimes preferences.

It was a hard necessary change. So let me put it candidly. Without the humility to give something up for the sake of the whole, no organization goes to the next level. This applies to church boards where a member is guarding their sacred ministries or organizational structure, to team leaders who are more concerned about their ministry than the whole ministry, staff who are guarding their ministry portfolio or in the case of missions, individuals who want to be independent contractors rather than members of an organization and in alignment with the whole. 

This one is a heart issue. And it keeps many Christian organizations from moving forward in ways that would be far more effective and results driven.

Why do good people in good organizations resist change even in the face of incontrovertible evidence it is needed? Their organizational family system resists it, the corporate EQ of the organization may not be healthy enough to see it and people are unwilling to give up the politics, silos and turf wars. 

What does it take to see real change in change unfriendly environments. First, the family system must champion honest, candid, truthful dialogue without seeking to pressure people back into the fold. It takes courage to speak up and be a change agent when there is significant resistance to resist that change. And there will usually be loud voices in opposition.

Second it takes the willingness to face the "brutal facts" as they are, look in the mirror, listen to outside voices who do not have a vested interest and who can see with greater objectivity and be willing to count the cost of the status quo. If one waits until the organization has plateaued and gone into decline it is often too late to resurrect what could have been. Now is usually the time to face the facts rather than later. 

Third, it takes the humility to give up the parts of our autonomous nature that keep the organization from being all that it can be. It is pride and power and guard silos and turf. It is humility and missional commitment that break them down. Does it matter? It will on the day we give an account to the Lord of the church. Ironically, it often matters more to those we serve than to us who lead. They often see what we cannot see and when they do not see their leaders act, they often decide to invest their lives elsewhere. 

Three transgressions of local church staff that hurt ministry effectiveness

I call them transgressions because they have spiritual impact and leave a great deal of spiritual opportunity on the table. These three transgressions include one transgression of omission and two of commission  Bear with me.

Transgression One: Lack of significant clarity in the local church as to what the church is about, where it is headed, what its non-negotiables are and what it is committed to achieving. 

I work with many churches who cannot define ministry clarity. It is a sin of omission that significantly impacts the spiritual effectiveness of the congregation. In the absence of maximum clarity every leader and team define their own clarity which is a recipe for confusion and competition. Eventually that lack of clarity creates silos, competing directions, and the proliferation of ministries which may or may not be effective. In the absence of clarity one does not know what is truly effective or whether or not we have achieved what we need to achieve. Lack of clarity is a sin of omission and it is endemic in the church.

Transgression Two: Lack of alignment around clarity. Church staff members can often be an independent lot who drive their own agendas and build their teams and ministries around their agendas. Don't get me wrong. It does not mean that they are not after good things. What I am saying is that many staff leaders are not committed to a common clarity and vision of the church but rather their own. This is a sin of commission.

No organization can maximize its impact unless its leaders are willing to get on the same page and work toward common goals. This means that we give up a certain amount of autonomy for the sake of a common strategic direction, mutual cooperation and a deep concern for the whole rather than a concern for our slice of the pie. Not committing ourselves to alignment with the whole is a sin of commission. It is a choice we make that hurts the whole and therefore our missional effectiveness. Thus it matters - a lot.

Transgression Three: Lack of accountability for results based on the missional clarity. Unless we can clearly show that our ministries are achieving results based on the ministry clarity of the church, we have no way of knowing whether we are being successful or not - which is why ministries are rarely ever cancelled but drift on and on whether they are delivering on the promise or not. 

Too many churches look like the Winchester House in San Jose, CA (Google it) with ministry built upon ministry with no common blueprint and no common direction. And, with each leader defending their piece of the turf and their section of the pie. It is why Patrick Lencioni's book, Silos, Politics and Turfwars has sold so many copies both in the ministry and secular world. In the ministry world it is a sad commentary on our lack of common vision, purpose and direction.

If you are on the staff of a church, I would encourage you to ask the question as to whether these three transgressions apply to your staff. If they do, put the issue on the table because none of us want to waste our lives or leave spiritual opportunity on the table.  I know that Jesus does not want us to leave opportunity on the table. 

If you need help in these areas, the book, Leading from the Sandbox can be a practical and valuable resource. Whatever you do, don't settle.

The journey from individual producer to leading through team

Many pastors and Christian organizational leaders did not sign up for ministry to lead others. They heard the call of God, wanted to make a difference for His Kingdom and entered ministry. It was a shock for some to wake up one day and realize "I am a leader and I've got to lead a staff, and I don't really like doing it."

I remember when I was an independent producer. I was a staff of one with an assistant. It was convenient: one person to oversee, my schedule was my own, I could focus on things I wanted to focus on and, while my work affected others, I was not personally responsible for them.

Today, the picture is different. I have a staff of over 550 with 10 senior leaders who directly or indirectly report to me. What I do, how I spend my time, and what my priorities are all directly affect others - and my ability to lead them well. 

The transition from independent producer to the leader of a staff of various sizes was not without its bumps and its lessons because the two kinds of responsibilities are very different.

Life for an independent producer is fairly simple. Life for a leader who leads staff or a team is much more complex. A leader of others must make critical transitions in how they think and act. They must transition:

From thinking about "How I drive ministry myself" to "how I facilitate ministry through other good people." It is no longer about me as much as it is about us.

From "how I would do things" to "empowering other good people to do things as they would do them" - in line with their gifting and skills.

From "I can do life as I like to arrange it" to "I need to take into account all those on my team and how I can best serve them and help them become the best they can be."

From player to coach. The larger my staff (volunteer or paid), the more I must transition from player to coach. It is not possible for me to ignore my team. If I do, they go south attitudinally or we develop silos without alignment.

From "hands on: in the details to helping define the "big rocks" and allow others to figure out the details.

From "I can determine the plan and strategy" to "we need to determine and own a common strategy."

From "I have a meeting to go to" to "I have a meeting that I need to carefully prepare for and lead."

From "my opinion is the one that counts" to "I need to be collaborative in my thinking, and decision making." And, "I need to encourage robust dialogue around issues and take a non-defensive posture when others disagree with me."

These are not easy transitions and there is significant leadership pain and even attrition when leaders go from being solo producers to team leaders and don't understand the need to do life differently. It is not uncommon for pastors who suddenly find themselves saddled with reports and a team who have not made the transitions above to face considerable unhappiness or conflict with staff. Often they are not aware of why the conflict is occurring.


If you lead others, have you made the transition?

Timing and Change: They work together

Timing on key decisions can be the key to either success or failure. A decision or direction can be the right one but if the timing is wrong, the right decision can go south - making it all the harder to move in that direction at a later time. This is particularly true with major change in an organization.

Leaders are always thinking ahead and it is not unusual for them to figure out a new direction (which may be a great direction for the organization) but in their impatience to make it happen, try to move before the organization is ready - and find that there is greater resistance to the change than they anticipated. The resulting "failure" of the effort undermines the leader's credibility and paints the direction as wrong even though it may not be.

Timing and change strategy go hand in hand. If you are a leader who desires to bring change to your organization, here are some questions that should be asked before you pull the trigger. Knowing the answers to these questions will help you determine whether the timing is right (or premature).

Do you have your key leaders with you so that when resistance to the new direction kicks in you are confident they will be your advocates?

Organizations that need change often have the wrong leaders in place. A new leader at the top may be critical but it is not enough. Unless that new leader has the support of the key organizational leaders the change will be sabotaged by the very people whose support you need.

It is not unusual that before introducing major change you need to change out leaders who will not go with you or who cannot be evangelists for that change. Wise leaders do not pull the trigger until they know that their key people will go with them.

Has the need for a major change been adequately communicated to the whole organization?

People are naturally change resistant. Entrepreneurial leaders are not and often do not take that resistance into account. Some people will never view change positively. Most people will agree to change if a higher value than their resistance can be called on and if the reason for change is properly communicated. That takes time, strategy and patience.

Senior leaders bringing change will not know whether there is adequate understanding and buy in from enough people unless they have dialogued with people throughout the organization - in person. In essence, one needs to create a crisis that is in proportion to the scale of the change needed. Crisis gets people's attention, life as normal does not.

For many ministries, the issue is simple. Unless we change and adapt to a changing world, we will no longer be effective. Ministries are notoriously behind the rest of the world in adapting to necessary change. The bottom line is that no matter what an organizational leader thinks, unless a good percentage of those he/she leads, agree, the change will not happen.

Is there a guiding coalition of folks who will champion what you intend to do?

This is the hard behind the scenes work necessary before rolling out major change. The board or governing authority needs to be with you. The line leaders need to be with you. And you need key people of influence in the organization with you.

As a leader you cannot be everywhere, all the time. You need people who are as passionate about what you are proposing as you are and who can be convincers of others at crucial moments. Major change without an adequate guiding coalition is doomed to fail.

Are you as a leader clear as to what your proposed change looks like?

It is one thing to know that change needs to happen. It is another to be clear as to what it looks like. If you are not clear you can be sure others will not be clear. While you may not be clear on everything, it is critical to be clear on the big issues so that you can clarify rather than confuse.

Many people will accept clear direction even if it is not the direction they would have chosen. Lack of clarity, however, brings apprehension rather than support.

Can you define the outcomes that you want to see and allow your line leaders and people to figure out strategies to get you there?

Your leaders and people need to have a stake in the change process and frankly, they are more likely to figure out the strategies to get you to your preferred outcomes than you will.

When the organization I lead, ReachGlobal, went through major change, one of our objectives was to move from "addition" to "multiplication" in all of our strategies. I could define the outcome, and in certain situations could give suggestions or possibilities but it was our missionaries who had to figure out what multiplication looked like in their context. They were the experts in their area, not me.

If you can define desired outcomes, giving good people a stake in figuring out strategy will go a long way in creating organizational buy in and common goals. Declaring how it must be done is rarely a good strategy for leaders.

Do you have the personal credibility to drive major change?

If you are a new leader, your coinage may be low (perhaps you came in from the outside) or it may be high (people are excited about what you bring). If you are an existing leader, your bank may be full of good will or it may be low if you have had to deal with difficult situations.

In any event, having a good feel for whether you have the personal credibility with your people to drive major organizational or cultural change is important. If you do not have the credibility or coinage - don't move forward until you do - or leave it to another leader who does not have the baggage you have.

Lack of personal credibility, whether fair or unfair, will likely cause your effort to fail. It is not worth the fallout to you or to the organization if it does. If change needs to happen and you dont' have the credibility to pull it off, do the right thing for the organization and let someone else with greater credibility do it.

If you can answer these questions in the affirmative, your timing is probably favorable for a positive outcome. If you cannot, wait! Trying to drive change prematurely hurts the organization in the long term and will make it all the more difficult to try again. In change, timing is critical. And wisdom is necessary to be able to answer the questions to determine the timing.

A sobering assessment of Middle East events for the safety of missionaries globally

The following statement from Assist News Service is an important one for all missionaries and agencies in light of the events of the past week around the world and particularly in the Middle East. I am quoting it in its entirety (with permission). These events should be a cause for increased prayer for missionaries and for our Christian brothers and sisters who are today at greater risk given the animosity between the Christian and Muslim world and the Muslim world and the West.

ASSIST News Service (ANS) - PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA
Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net -- E-mail: assistnews@aol.com

Saturday, September 15, 2012

‘The World Changed Today for Christians,’ says Mary Marr, Founder and President of the Christian Emergency Network
She gives vital recommendations of how Christians and missionary groups can protect themselves and their staff during this time of unparalleled violence

By Dan Wooding
Founder of ASSIST Ministries

PHOENIX, AZ (ANS) -- In an unprecedented and well-organized attack on over 21 U.S. and German embassies this week, the loss of security and sovereignty represented by each embassy is a “world changing” event for Christians, churches, and missionaries around the globe.


This is the view of Mary Marr, Founder and President of The Christian Emergency Network (CEN), who spoke to the ASSIST News Service (www.assistnews.net) today (Saturday, September 15, 2012) in an exclusive interview.

She began by saying, “These events beg the questions: If the U.S. cannot or will not defend embassies, what will be defended? If the embassy staff, in Libya or elsewhere, is not defended, what will the aid be to any U.S. citizen traveling in a country who may be at risk? Apart from domestic security in the U.S. what does this mean for Christians, churches and missionaries around the globe?

“Missionaries have long lived with an eternal perspective in that each day their lives may be at risk in many countries where they minister. And, those with U.S. citizenship may have long relied upon the belief the U.S. embassies were not only symbolic, but bastions of security, while traveling or residing in another country.

“However, the events of this week are putting that assumption into question. As responsible caring believers, we must not refuse to examine the consequences for Christians (or any U.S. citizen) living or traveling abroad after this week nor to ignore the consequences domestically.

“It is not a matter of simply making ‘a statement’ with our wallets by curtailing tourist travel as some in the media have called for, or demonstrating anger over a foreign sovereign country not securing our embassies called for under international law. It is a matter of realistically assessing the security of our citizens. And, that includes Christians and missionaries residing around the world.”


Marr went on to say, “This cauldron has been simmering for a very long time. Anyone can readily see this level and highly organized outrage was not simply because of one movie as anything may have triggered the outrage in countries angered with the U.S. for one reason or another. These are highly orchestrated protests with historic and current security consequences for all Christians and missionaries, as well as citizens of the U.S. and other countries who consistently defend their citizens when traveling around the world.

“Historically in times of battle when a fort is taken a victorious flag rises as a symbol of defeat, such as we have seen with the U.S. flag in many countries being replaced by a black Islamist flag in recent days.

“When Francis Scott Key was awaiting word on a British or U.S. victory, he began writing what was to become the American National Anthem with the words, ‘And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there….’ This was a symbol of victory and an inspiration for a fledgling new nation standing for the freedom, including a nation built upon religious freedom for all faiths.”

Marr, who founded CEN after Sept 11, 2001 to “help the Body of Christ respond more biblically, intentionally and collaboratively to national emergencies,” went on to tell ANS, “During WWII, when fellow soldiers raised the flag over Iwo Jima the infamous photograph was formed into a memorial, which still stands as a remainder and symbolic declaration of strategic victory inspiring the war was at an end. Just as words have meaning, flags have meaning.

“And, just as the Christian flag has meaning for followers of Christ, so the Islamic flag has meaning for many Muslims around the globe. Erecting the Islamist flag over our embassies has meaning in that it makes the statement the Islamist flag has replaced the sovereignty of the country and it is no longer recognized as a place of security and defense for that country or the citizens who reside in those countries.

“The boldness of taking down one flag of an embassy of a sovereign nation and replacing it with a religious flag should not be minimized as bold consequences may follow as result. Just this week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a rare security bulletin putting faith-based organizations on alert as the situation escalates in the Middle East and beyond.

“Rather than retreating in denial or avoidance, as those without the 'Hope of Christ' as we have been prone to do, the situation before us means a vital question must be decidedly answered.”

When asked what Christians, churches, Christian ministries and missionary organizations specifically should do right away regarding to their own global security from a Biblical perspective, she replied, “First, they should not minimize the consequences of the security risks of their Christians missionaries in countries around the globe. Prayerful and intentional decisions need to be made by the missionary organizations, apart from their traditional decision-making processes, since these are unprecedented times.”

Marr said that the U.S. government "may be distracted, unable or unwilling to be efficient in aiding missionaries, so it is incumbent upon the missionary organization itself to ask tough questions.”

She then listed them as:
1. Is the current environment in a given country secure for Christians and missionaries? What does security mean to your organization?

2. Are the missionaries “in country relationships” reliable, silent, less valuable, or becoming less constrained related to matters of security?

3. Do we stay the course as a missionary organization regardless of the security risk and cost or pull our missionaries out for another day when they may minister more effectively? 

Two Scriptures, which may apply in making this decision, are: “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, ‘I am strong!’” (Joel 3:10 NIV) or, “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4 NIV).

Marr continued by saying, “When Rome was encountering the plague, many Christians stayed to assist those in need, for the cause of the Gospel. There is a place biblically for the first responder, as we know full well, and the soldier who sacrifices his life for the lives of many. Yet, the ultimate sacrifice should not be given without cause. Self-sacrifice is not always called for as there is also the biblical perspective to survive another day and fulfill the mission by going on.

This perspective is in fact the first recommendation! However, God is the only one who is able to guide us in which biblical principle applies in every situation.

“However, regardless of which Scripture and biblical perspective applies to any situation the primary responsibility for securing Christians within the church facility while in worship is the church itself for example. And, the primary responsibility for securing missionaries is the mission organization itself, not the missionary in the field. Regardless of risk and cost, whether it is Church leadership, ministry or missionary organizations Christian leaders need to make prayerful, intentional, and deliberate decisions based upon the reality of the situation, as no decision is a decision, and the most dangerous decision of all!

“We cannot stand idly by and wait for government to address the security of our churches, ministries or families whether domestically or abroad. The responsibility primarily resided with us. What should churches, missionaries, and Christians do right now whether they are clearly in an 'at risk' situation abroad are this week or domestically in the future?"

Marr added, “To assist you, your family, church and local Christian community to assess your level of biblical readiness, develop emergency operations plans, build spiritual, emotional, mental and physical resiliency to biblically respond in crisis of all kinds, CEN (www.christianemergencynetwork.org) provides three helpful training programs - ReadyChristian, ReadyChurch, and ReadyCity.”

She then suggested the following immediate steps for churches, ministry and missionary organizations:

* Train staff to be aware of unusual activities such as loitering or taking photos of facilities

* Sign up for CEN Alerts ongoing for timely updates on unfolding crisis

* Develop emergency operation plans

* Establish safe rooms, shelter in place actions, and communication plans

* Post sentries during events and worship services who rotate and rove

* Establish relationships with local law enforcement and report suspicious any activity immediately 

* Limit vehicle access to the perimeters of facilities

* Lock windows and doors, use fencing and gate locks

* Review your faith-organization’s website for any information that may be sensitive

* Identify entry exits clearly to emergency evacuations and conduct an evacuation drill

Mary Marr’s expertise is in providing a unique Christian worldview to emergency preparedness and response, working with Department of Homeland Security and FEMA faith-based initiatives, developing the Biblical Readiness Standard, and offering a biblical perspective on any crisis situation provides a unique and valued service to the Christian community worldwide. In addition to being a seasoned radio broadcaster, educator, speaker, and author of Lighting the Way, Mary is also the author of CEN's three core ready training programs: ReadyChristian, ReadyChurch and ReadyCity.

She concluded by saying, “Every Christian should be ready to respond biblically to emergencies large or small. Christian Emergency Network unites Christian volunteers, community leaders and emergency professionals in equipping the Church to be aware and ready to respond in emergencies large and small. 

To learn more about how you or your Christian organization can be prepared to respond to emergencies go to www.christianemergencynetwork.org.”

Note to the media: If you would like to schedule an interview with Mary Marr, please contact her at: mary.marr@christianemergencynetwork.org. Also you can contact: Misti McHatton, CEN's Public Information Officer (misti.mchatton@christianemergencynetwork.org) or by phone at either (800) 260-5637 or 480-326-9132.